This PR follows #21535 (and replace #22592)
## Review without space diff
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22678/files?diff=split&w=1
## Purpose of this PR
1. Make git module command completely safe (risky user inputs won't be
passed as argument option anymore)
2. Avoid low-level mistakes like
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/22098#discussion_r1045234918
3. Remove deprecated and dirty `CmdArgCheck` function, hide the `CmdArg`
type
4. Simplify code when using git command
## The main idea of this PR
* Move the `git.CmdArg` to the `internal` package, then no other package
except `git` could use it. Then developers could never do
`AddArguments(git.CmdArg(userInput))` any more.
* Introduce `git.ToTrustedCmdArgs`, it's for user-provided and already
trusted arguments. It's only used in a few cases, for example: use git
arguments from config file, help unit test with some arguments.
* Introduce `AddOptionValues` and `AddOptionFormat`, they make code more
clear and simple:
* Before: `AddArguments("-m").AddDynamicArguments(message)`
* After: `AddOptionValues("-m", message)`
* -
* Before: `AddArguments(git.CmdArg(fmt.Sprintf("--author='%s <%s>'",
sig.Name, sig.Email)))`
* After: `AddOptionFormat("--author='%s <%s>'", sig.Name, sig.Email)`
## FAQ
### Why these changes were not done in #21535 ?
#21535 is mainly a search&replace, it did its best to not change too
much logic.
Making the framework better needs a lot of changes, so this separate PR
is needed as the second step.
### The naming of `AddOptionXxx`
According to git's manual, the `--xxx` part is called `option`.
### How can it guarantee that `internal.CmdArg` won't be not misused?
Go's specification guarantees that. Trying to access other package's
internal package causes compilation error.
And, `golangci-lint` also denies the git/internal package. Only the
`git/command.go` can use it carefully.
### There is still a `ToTrustedCmdArgs`, will it still allow developers
to make mistakes and pass untrusted arguments?
Generally speaking, no. Because when using `ToTrustedCmdArgs`, the code
will be very complex (see the changes for examples). Then developers and
reviewers can know that something might be unreasonable.
### Why there was a `CmdArgCheck` and why it's removed?
At the moment of #21535, to reduce unnecessary changes, `CmdArgCheck`
was introduced as a hacky patch. Now, almost all code could be written
as `cmd := NewCommand(); cmd.AddXxx(...)`, then there is no need for
`CmdArgCheck` anymore.
### Why many codes for `signArg == ""` is deleted?
Because in the old code, `signArg` could never be empty string, it's
either `-S[key-id]` or `--no-gpg-sign`. So the `signArg == ""` is just
dead code.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
There are 2 separate flows of creating a user: authentication and source
sync.
When a group filter is defined, source sync ignores group filter, while
authentication respects it.
With this PR I've fixed this behavior, so both flows now apply this
filter when searching users in LDAP in a unified way.
- Unified LDAP group membership lookup for authentication and source
sync flows
- Replaced custom group membership lookup (used for authentication flow)
with an existing listLdapGroupMemberships method (used for source sync
flow)
- Modified listLdapGroupMemberships and getUserAttributeListedInGroup in
a way group lookup could be called separately
- Added user filtering based on a group membership for a source sync
- Added tests to cover this logic
Co-authored-by: Pavel Ezhov <paejov@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Disable this test for the moment because the used imap container image
seems unstable which results in many failed CI builds.
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
This PR adds the support for scopes of access tokens, mimicking the
design of GitHub OAuth scopes.
The changes of the core logic are in `models/auth` that `AccessToken`
struct will have a `Scope` field. The normalized (no duplication of
scope), comma-separated scope string will be stored in `access_token`
table in the database.
In `services/auth`, the scope will be stored in context, which will be
used by `reqToken` middleware in API calls. Only OAuth2 tokens will have
granular token scopes, while others like BasicAuth will default to scope
`all`.
A large amount of work happens in `routers/api/v1/api.go` and the
corresponding `tests/integration` tests, that is adding necessary scopes
to each of the API calls as they fit.
- [x] Add `Scope` field to `AccessToken`
- [x] Add access control to all API endpoints
- [x] Update frontend & backend for when creating tokens
- [x] Add a database migration for `scope` column (enable 'all' access
to past tokens)
I'm aiming to complete it before Gitea 1.19 release.
Fixes #4300
This PR introduce glob match for protected branch name. The separator is
`/` and you can use `*` matching non-separator chars and use `**` across
separator.
It also supports input an exist or non-exist branch name as matching
condition and branch name condition has high priority than glob rule.
Should fix #2529 and #15705
screenshots
<img width="1160" alt="image"
src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/81045/205651179-ebb5492a-4ade-4bb4-a13c-965e8c927063.png">
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
closes #13585
fixes #9067
fixes #2386
ref #6226
ref #6219
fixes #745
This PR adds support to process incoming emails to perform actions.
Currently I added handling of replies and unsubscribing from
issues/pulls. In contrast to #13585 the IMAP IDLE command is used
instead of polling which results (in my opinion 😉) in cleaner code.
Procedure:
- When sending an issue/pull reply email, a token is generated which is
present in the Reply-To and References header.
- IMAP IDLE waits until a new email arrives
- The token tells which action should be performed
A possible signature and/or reply gets stripped from the content.
I added a new service to the drone pipeline to test the receiving of
incoming mails. If we keep this in, we may test our outgoing emails too
in future.
Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
- Move the file `compare.go` and `slice.go` to `slice.go`.
- Fix `ExistsInSlice`, it's buggy
- It uses `sort.Search`, so it assumes that the input slice is sorted.
- It passes `func(i int) bool { return slice[i] == target })` to
`sort.Search`, that's incorrect, check the doc of `sort.Search`.
- Conbine `IsInt64InSlice(int64, []int64)` and `ExistsInSlice(string,
[]string)` to `SliceContains[T]([]T, T)`.
- Conbine `IsSliceInt64Eq([]int64, []int64)` and `IsEqualSlice([]string,
[]string)` to `SliceSortedEqual[T]([]T, T)`.
- Add `SliceEqual[T]([]T, T)` as a distinction from
`SliceSortedEqual[T]([]T, T)`.
- Redesign `RemoveIDFromList([]int64, int64) ([]int64, bool)` to
`SliceRemoveAll[T]([]T, T) []T`.
- Add `SliceContainsFunc[T]([]T, func(T) bool)` and
`SliceRemoveAllFunc[T]([]T, func(T) bool)` for general use.
- Add comments to explain why not `golang.org/x/exp/slices`.
- Add unit tests.
This puts the fuzz tests in the same directory as other tests and eases
the integration in OSS-Fuzz
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <techknowlogick@gitea.io>
After #22362, we can feel free to use transactions without
`db.DefaultContext`.
And there are still lots of models using `db.DefaultContext`, I think we
should refactor them carefully and one by one.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
There are repeated failures with this test which appear related to
failures in getTokenForLoggedInUser. It is difficult to further evaluate
the cause of these failures as we do not get given further information.
This PR will attempt to fix this.
First it adds some extra logging and it uses the csrf cookie primarily
for the csrf value.
If the problem does not occur again with those changes we could merge,
assume that it is fixed and hope that if it occurs in future the
additional logging will be helpful.
If not I will add more changes in attempt to fix.
Fix #22105
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: techknowlogick <matti@mdranta.net>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
- There have been [CI
failures](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/111) in this
specific test function. The code on itself looks good, the CI failures
are likely caused by not specifying any field in `TeamUser`, which might
have caused to unittest to return another `TeamUser` than the code
expects.
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Close #14601
Fix #3690
Revive of #14601.
Updated to current code, cleanup and added more read/write checks.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Signed-off-by: Andre Bruch <ab@andrebruch.com>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: Norwin <git@nroo.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix #16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
This PR addresses #19586
I added a mutex to the upload version creation which will prevent the
push errors when two requests try to create these database entries. I'm
not sure if this should be the final solution for this problem.
I added a workaround to allow a reupload of missing blobs. Normally a
reupload is skipped because the database knows the blob is already
present. The workaround checks if the blob exists on the file system.
This should not be needed anymore with the above fix so I marked this
code to be removed with Gitea v1.20.
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This PR adds a context parameter to a bunch of methods. Some helper
`xxxCtx()` methods got replaced with the normal name now.
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Related #20471
This PR adds global quota limits for the package registry. Settings for
individual users/orgs can be added in a seperate PR using the settings
table.
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
This addresses #21707 and adds a second package test case for a
non-semver compatible version (this might be overkill though since you
could also edit the old package version to have an epoch in front and
see the error, this just seemed more flexible for the future).
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Close https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/21640
Before: Gitea can create users like ".xxx" or "x..y", which is not
ideal, it's already a consensus that dot filenames have special
meanings, and `a..b` is a confusing name when doing cross repo compare.
After: stricter
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
_This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting
some parts, see below_
## Context
In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication.
The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a
given token. For instance:
- Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the
header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872)
- TeamCity #18667
- Gitea instances #20267
- SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this
is my actual personal need :)
## Proposed solution
Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing
it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all
present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307).
This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872.
As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and
improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple
`Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and
`Basic` switches):
The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase
justifying otherwise.
## Questions
- What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind
- ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new
file, or is there a command for that?~~
- ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I
drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~
## Done as well:
- add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the
`Authorization` logic there
_Closes #19872_
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
I found myself wondering whether a PR I scheduled for automerge was
actually merged. It was, but I didn't receive a mail notification for it
- that makes sense considering I am the doer and usually don't want to
receive such notifications. But ideally I want to receive a notification
when a PR was merged because I scheduled it for automerge.
This PR implements exactly that.
The implementation works, but I wonder if there's a way to avoid passing
the "This PR was automerged" state down so much. I tried solving this
via the database (checking if there's an automerge scheduled for this PR
when sending the notification) but that did not work reliably, probably
because sending the notification happens async and the entry might have
already been deleted. My implementation might be the most
straightforward but maybe not the most elegant.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
I noticed an admin is not allowed to upload packages for other users
because `ctx.IsSigned` was not set.
I added a check for `user.IsActive` and `user.ProhibitLogin` too because
both was not checked. Tests enforce this now.
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
The OAuth spec [defines two types of
client](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-2.1),
confidential and public. Previously Gitea assumed all clients to be
confidential.
> OAuth defines two client types, based on their ability to authenticate
securely with the authorization server (i.e., ability to
> maintain the confidentiality of their client credentials):
>
> confidential
> Clients capable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., client implemented on a secure server with
> restricted access to the client credentials), or capable of secure
client authentication using other means.
>
> **public
> Clients incapable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., clients executing on the device used by the resource
owner, such as an installed native application or a web browser-based
application), and incapable of secure client authentication via any
other means.**
>
> The client type designation is based on the authorization server's
definition of secure authentication and its acceptable exposure levels
of client credentials. The authorization server SHOULD NOT make
assumptions about the client type.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.4
> Authorization servers MUST record the client type in the client
registration details in order to identify and process requests
accordingly.
Require PKCE for public clients:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.1
> Authorization servers SHOULD reject authorization requests from native
apps that don't use PKCE by returning an error message
Fixes #21299
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
